Question about the morality of a medical procedure

[TheRealJuliane]

By the way, ALL physicians are trained that a human embryo is human from conception. None of them are able to deny that the baby is a baby from its creation. Some of them justify abortion by some form of twisted rationalization, but all of them know the scientific fact. It’s in all the medical textbooks.

And most ordinary laypeople also agree that a human embryo is a baby from at least very early stages, if not conception. Again, some can rationalize that abortion of a baby is OK, for whatever reasons, but most people really do know the truth.

 

[catharina]

By the way, ALL physicians are trained that a human embryo is human from conception. None of them are able to deny that the baby is a baby from its creation. Some of them justify abortion by some form of twisted rationalization, but all of them know the scientific fact. It’s in all the medical textbooks.

And most ordinary laypeople also agree that a human embryo is a baby from at least very early stages, if not conception. Again, some can rationalize that abortion of a baby is OK, for whatever reasons, but most people really do know the truth.

Yes!

That makes the issue of “killing one to save another” a VERY simple issue.
We are Catholics. We do NOT kill one to “save” another.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

Yes!

That makes the issue of “killing one to save another” a VERY simple issue.
We are Catholics. We do NOT kill one to “save” another.

Just as I could not, as a Catholic mother, choose to abort a baby in order to save my own life. I could not do that - to murder my child instead of allowing God to work a miracle. A lot of people (non-Catholics) will never understand that viewpoint but I don’t have to explain it here on this forum. I would never choose my own life over that of my child. If I had cancer or something and was pregnant, I would sacrifice my possible survival in order to give birth to a healthy child.

 

[catharina]

alright I had a feeling that would be that way, I hope you can see why this isn’t a simple issue.

The question asked in this thread does relate to a very simple issue.
That might be why the thread is continuing, despite your wish to close it.
As a future seminarian, you too should consider such to be a very simple issue.

 

[catholictiger]

**so thanks to all, I hope.

… and you’re very welcome.
Come on Catholic tiger, give us a break.**

yes thanks to all

I understand how this issue is, I think sometimes the enemy can be very deceiving. This issue I have found to be very straight forward but sometimes the enemy makes you focus on the wrong thing which causes you to hold the wrong opinion. Like in this situation you look at the result of the actions not the actual actions of what takes place. I realized this, God is good

 

[catholictiger]

The question asked in this thread does relate to a very simple issue.
That might be why the thread is continuing, despite your wish to close it.
As a future seminarian, you too should consider such to be a very simple issue.

yes I realized this but after this post occured

 

[Beth_Cecilia]

Come on. It may be a question with an answer, but it is far from simple. What mother would not consider it. Given the heartbreaking choice between the death of one child and the death of both, who would not consider it? There may be one answer but there are multiple perspectives which complicate the emotion, if not the answer.

The problem with the question as I framed it above is that it is the natural death of two vs. the unnatural death of one. Asked another way, without the emotional complexity of abortion, the question might be framed as follows: Is it ever OK to kill an innocent trying to save the life of another innocent? Is is more or less OK if the innocent in question is going to die anyway?

It seems to me to be related to the question of whether or not drug testing can be done on people without their consent. Not the same, obviously, but similar in the sense that there is a good which is sought, but it will kill people without giving them the chance to speak for themselves, or defend themselves. It is not OK, even if the people in question are terminal. Most people would agree and defend the patient.

 

[catharina]

Come on. It may be a question with an answer, but it is far from simple. What mother would not consider it. Given the heartbreaking choice between the death of one child and the death of both, who would not consider it? There may be one answer but there are multiple perspectives which complicate the emotion, if not the answer.

The problem with the question as I framed it above is that it is the natural death of two vs. the unnatural death of one. Asked another way, without the emotional complexity of abortion, the question might be framed as follows: Is it ever OK to kill an innocent trying to save the life of another innocent? Is is more or less OK if the innocent in question is going to die anyway?

It seems to me to be related to the question of whether or not drug testing can be done on people without their consent. Not the same, obviously, but similar in the sense that there is a good which is sought, but it will kill people without giving them the chance to speak for themselves, or defend themselves. It is not OK, even if the people in question are terminal. Most people would agree and defend the patient.

Catholics are required to recognize and defend both patients.
We are not called to play God - sacrificing the life of one to “save” another.
That is very basic, standard Church Teaching.

If your brother whom you might dislike could offer
a liver to your dying sister whom you like - then why not
kill your brother and take his liver? It’s actually that simple.

You can’t kill your brother for the sake of your sister.
We can NOT play God.

What “most people” might say is irrelevant.

 

[Rence]

Come on. It may be a question with an answer, but it is far from simple. What mother would not consider it. Given the heartbreaking choice between the death of one child and the death of both, who would not consider it? There may be one answer but there are multiple perspectives which complicate the emotion, if not the answer.

You are right, it’s far from simple. And it’s a very tragic and painful place to be - that’s the nature of this type of senario. I know some mothers who would consider it, as painful as it is, especially if they have other children at home, or if they have lost previous pregnancies. And I know some mothers who would not, as painful as it is, especially if it were their first pregnancy. But what kind of answers did you expect regarding the morality of this type of medical procedure in this type of situation on a Catholic forum? The Church would forbid this medical procedure, and so Catholics have to obey the Church if they want to remain in communion with the Church. As painful as it is, that’s the way it is. The Church would say, “Find a way to save them both as they are both equally important, and may God’s Will be done - but you can’t kill one to save the other.” That’s the Catholic answer for the morality of this medical procedure. I hope that helps and answers your question.

 

[catharina]

You are right, it’s far from simple. And it’s a very tragic and painful place to be - that’s the nature of this type of senario. I know some mothers who would consider it, as painful as it is, especially if they have other children at home, or if they have lost previous pregnancies. And I know some mothers who would not, as painful as it is, especially if it were their first pregnancy. But what kind of answers did you expect regarding the morality of this type of medical procedure in this type of situation on a Catholic forum? The Church would forbid this medical procedure, and so Catholics have to obey the Church if they want to remain in communion with the Church. As painful as it is, that’s the way it is. The Church would say, “Find a way to save them both as they are both equally important, and may God’s Will be done - but you can’t kill one to save the other.” That’s the Catholic answer for the morality of this medical procedure. I hope that helps and answers your question.

Perfect response, rence.
I thank you.

 

[Beth_Cecilia]

Hm. Apparently I was unclear. I understand the Church’s position and reasoning. I do not disagree. I just don’t think it is simple. The OP has been called out multiple times now for even asking the question. The position of the Church is not obvious, though it is correct. It makes me crazy when people take the position that such questions are easy. They are not. The Church does not say that they are- she is not without compassion. What most people say may be irrelevant to the question of what is right, but it is not irrelevant to the question of simplicity.

In any event, the reason I brought up “most people” is because I think that most people, if you take abortion out of the question and make it simply about when you are allowed to kill an innocent, arrive at the same conclusion that the Church has. When you take the emotional baggage of abortion out of the question, the position of the Church suddenly becomes pretty easy to defend- even to those who do not respect her authority. We do not use terminal cancer patients as guinea pigs for new drugs without consent. We do not kill a terminally ill brother to save a sister who was in an accident and needs a new heart. We do not allow direct abortion even to save a sibling. The only way the latter case differs is if you think that the unborn child is not a person, but a potential person. That is not at issue here, and it is not at issue in the Church. The fetus is a person and must be defended, protected and loved.

 

[catharina]

Hm. Apparently I was unclear. I understand the Church’s position and reasoning. I do not disagree. I just don’t think it is simple. The OP has been called out multiple times now for even asking the question. The position of the Church is not obvious, though it is correct. It makes me crazy when people take the position that such questions are easy. They are not. The Church does not say that they are- she is not without compassion. What most people say may be irrelevant to the question of what is right, but it is not irrelevant to the question of simplicity.

In any event, the reason I brought up “most people” is because I think that most people, if you take abortion out of the question and make it simply about when you are allowed to kill an innocent, arrive at the same conclusion that the Church has. When you take the emotional baggage of abortion out of the question, the position of the Church suddenly becomes pretty easy to defend- even to those who do not respect her authority. We do not use terminal cancer patients as guinea pigs for new drugs without consent. We do not kill a terminally ill brother to save a sister who was in an accident and needs a new heart. We do not allow direct abortion even to save a sibling. The only way the latter case differs is if you think that the unborn child is not a person, but a potential person. That is not at issue here, and it is not at issue in the Church. The fetus is a person and must be defended, protected and loved.

Wonderful clarification, Beth Cecilia.
Thank you so much.

Prayers for your pregnancy.

 

[Rock_Happy]

:thumbsup:So too, might their patients.

I am in the final month of a complicated pregnancy. My daughter will be born with serious health conditions. The initial diagnosis was terrifying. My doctor believed she had little chance of living more that a few months. Since then we have been on a roller coaster of emotions and run the gamut of tests to find out what is wrong and what we can do-not because we were considering termination- we never did- but because when our little one is born she will need serous medical care, possibly immediate surgery, and we want the best possible care on hand for her. Even now, with a better prognosis, we expect our daughter will be facing a very difficult childhood with many, many dangerous surgeries.

Who has helped me the most?

My family is very pro-life. They have helped me get to appointments (every week), babysat my older daughter, prayed for me and cleaned my house.

My pastor is amazing. He, pastoring a huge parish, made time to meet with us to advise. He goes out of his way to make sure we know he is thinking about us and praying for us.

My friends have prayed- some with vigils and novenas.

My doctors- I have about half a dozen. I left one behind because he was not pro-choice but pro-abortion. He could not support my decision to carry the baby to term. He has been denounced by the rest, pro-choice all. They have gone miles out of the way to help me understand what will happen, what the baby and I will need and how to get the best care. They even asked if I had named my daughter so they could use her name, rather than more impersonal terms when discussing her prenatal care.

I have been meeting with two (pro-choice) genetic counselors. They have aggressively made sure that I have always had whatever I needed in support of my pregnancy. Thet connected me with the group Isaiah’s Promise. They call the doctors to coordinate visits, so I do not spend my whole life at the hospital. They call me directly with test results so I don’t have to wait. They meet with me and my husband to help us emotionally prepare. They backed my decision to leave the horrible doctor, and they shared my anger. They protect me from questions about termination (well they did early on) by telling the docs beforehand that I was not going to consider it, and they should go forward from that decision. I only had to answer the question once, maybe twice.

I am sick of the false idea that a pro-choice doctor or other medical professional cannot be a fierce advocate for the unborn. In my experience as a frightened pro-life mom, it is wholly unfair.

Thank you for sharing your story. I am only a medical student, but even with my very limited experience I have seen things which could be called miracles. Hope and faith are never unfounded, and they sure beat the alternatives. I wish you, your child and your family the best together.

I know that there is much more to the preservation of life than mere medical science. The practicing physicians whom I choose to emulate are the ones who are strong advocates for their patient’s wishes, regardless of the patient’s ideology. It is not our role to know what decision is best for you. Our role is to help you to understand the ramifications of YOUR decision, and then to do our best to support you in that. You should not be able to discern whether your attending physician is pro choice or pro life from her or his actions or statements.

I also know that it is much harder to save a life than to take one. I have done both. Yet, that is the struggle that the medical profession chooses to face each day. Extremely difficult decisions are made every day by some very courageous and compassionate people together.

 

[Rock_Happy]

Catholics are required to recognize and defend both patients.
We are not called to play God - sacrificing the life of one to “save” another.
That is very basic, standard Church Teaching.

If your brother whom you might dislike could offer
a liver to your dying sister whom you like - then why not
kill your brother and take his liver? It’s actually that simple.

You can’t kill your brother for the sake of your sister.
We can NOT play God.

What “most people” might say is irrelevant.

Well, the question can be re-framed analogously outside the context of pregnancy. If you can redirect a runaway train to only kill a few people, or to kill a larger number if you leave it alone, then which do you choose? What about the choice between a younger person, or an older? The Pope or a street drunk? The cardiac surgeon or the murderer? Can you put a relative value on human life? Is it fair to make a choice, or do you just let fate run its course and shrug your shoulders saying it is God’s will?

The challenge of giving it up to God sometimes is knowing when to do so, and when to take action.

A decision such as the one posed by the OP would be made by the patient. A physician would only make a similar decision if a patient were in a life threatening condition, and the patient was unable to make the decision, and had no medical decision maker present, and time was of the essence. These conditions are required ethically and legally.

 

[catharina]

Well, the question can be re-framed analogously outside the context of pregnancy. If you can redirect a runaway train to only kill a few people, or to kill a larger number if you leave it alone, then which do you choose? What about the choice between a younger person, or an older? The Pope or a street drunk? The cardiac surgeon or the murderer? Can you put a relative value on human life? Is it fair to make a choice, or do you just let fate run its course and shrug your shoulders saying it is God’s will? The challenge of giving it up to God sometimes is knowing when to do so, and when to take action.

A decision such as the one posed by the OP would be made by the patient. A physician would only make a similar decision if a patient were in a life threatening condition, and the patient was unable to make the decision, and had no medical decision maker present, and time was of the essence. These conditions are required ethically and legally.

Shrug my shoulders? Surely you jest.

As a Catholic, I accept that the will of God does not
allow me to choose to sacrifice one life to save another.

 

[Rock_Happy]

Shrug my shoulders? Surely you jest.

As a Catholic, I accept that the will of God does not
allow me to choose to sacrifice one life to save another.

As a warrior i learned that it is common to choose one life over another, proactively and prejudiciallly. Church doctrine and practice has been to endorse such action for many Centuries.

Surely you jest if you are trying to get anyone to believe that the Catholic Church does not endorse killing people to save others under some circumstances.

 

[Bookcat]

Yes it would be wrong…it is abortion a very gravely sinful thing.

 

[catharina]

As a warrior i learned that it is common to choose one life over another, proactively and prejudiciallly. Church doctrine and practice has been to endorse such action for many Centuries.

Surely you jest if you are trying to get anyone to believe that the Catholic Church does not endorse killing people to save others under some circumstances.

Off topic.

The issue as stated relates to the “choice” of abortion.

*"In the 3rd month of the pregnancy lets say she goes back to see how her twins are doing, and the Doctor tells her that there is a complication in your pregnancy, Both of these babies have a medical disorder we believe that could kill the babies before they come full term. But If we tie the tubes of one of the babies essentially killing off this baby, the other baby will have an large increased chance of surviving the pregnancy. So I suggest that you let one of these babies die to save the others. If you do not both will probably die. 

So my question would it be morally wrong to let that one child die or deliberately kill that child in order to save the other child."*

So think again - if you want to discuss
the ‘just war’ theory, then I suggest you open a new thread.

Your “concern” is mis-placed on this thread.

 

[Rock_Happy]

now that is ironic. you accuse me of changing the subject by changing the subject to my supposedly changing the subject.

you made a general statement which was false. i refuted it. simple as that

 

[Rence]

As a warrior i learned that it is common to choose one life over another, proactively and prejudiciallly. Church doctrine and practice has been to endorse such action for many Centuries.

Surely you jest if you are trying to get anyone to believe that the Catholic Church does not endorse killing people to save others under some circumstances.

Well that’s a good point actually, and true…but the Church sets abortion apart from any other circumstance.